Blair knew Iraq weapon claims were incorrect, says ex-minister

[Spazito]

LONDON (AFP) - British Prime Minister Tony Blair (news - web sites) privately conceded before the war with Iraq (news - web sites) that it had no quickly deployable chemical weapons, despite publicly claiming that Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s arsenal posed a serious threat, former Foreign Secretary Robin Cook said.


Cook suggested that when he spoke to the prime minister two weeks before the conflict began on March 20 he gained the impression that Blair was determined to go to war, regardless of progress made by United Nations (news - web sites) inspectors hunting for weapons of mass destruction.


Cook's claims are included in a book based on diaries he kept during the tense period in the run-up to war, serialised in the Sunday Times.


The London-based newspaper said the revelations shattered the case for war put forward by the government that Iraq posed a "serious and current" threat.

more

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1512&e=2&u=/afp/britain_iraq_cook

[roguevalley]

1. If I were a parent of a dead soldier,

I would sue Blair and the government and subpeona all these people.
I would personally donate money to such a cause.

Blair is either the most souless bastard to come out of British politics in five hundred years or he's a criminal opportunist. He certainly isn't certifiable. He actually made a decision here.

[bahrbearian]

2. He's just looking for a Job at Carlyle like Major's

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

3. "Blair 'not welcome' at war service"

"The families of British soldiers killed in Iraq have fiercely criticised Tony Blair's decision to attend a remembrance service for Britain's war dead.

One grieving relative - the father of the helicopter pilot Philip Green killed in a crash - said the Prime Minister should stay away from the service at St Paul's Cathedral on Friday.

Richard Green, a businessman from Grantham, Lincolnshire, claimed Mr Blair had lied to the nation about the need for war and was ultimately to blame for the deaths of 51 British troops. "He shouldn't be there because he's the one that killed them," he said. The attacks are highly damaging for Mr Blair - coming only days after he avoided an embarrassing clash with Labour activists over his decision to attack Iraq without United Nations backing."

<snip>

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=450117

[Spazito]

4. Bravo to the families!

They are right, Blair shouldn't show his slimy face at the memorial services, it denigrates what those deaths really stand for which is Blair's decision to aid Bush in invading Iraq.

I also think Mr. Green, in the article is dead on in his description of Bush:

Mr Green admitted he felt highly emotional about Mr Blair's presence at the service. "I think he's a war criminal, it's as simple as that. The man, without any consideration to the Labour parliamentary party, elected to go to war with this scabby little friend in Texas , and killed 51 of our men unnecessarily," he said. "If I have a chance to meet him on Friday, I will tell him to his face."

[TacticalPeek]

5. There's blood and then there's blood.

Its enough to give one pause.

"When asked at a press conference with Japanese Prime
Minister Junichiro Koizumi whether he had "blood on
his hands" and might resign, Blair only stared
straight ahead and remained speechless."

[T_i_B]

6. So we were lied into war then?

Bliar Bliar pants on fire.

Seriously though, this news is no suprise whatsoever. :grr:

The sooner Blair resigns the better.

[Jack Rabbit]

13. Absolutely no surprise

We have been asking the Iraq Invasion version of the Howard Baker question for some time: What did they know and when did they know it?

No one should ever believe for a minute that anyone in either the Blair ministry or the Bush junta was misled by "faulty intelligence". The intelligence was there to show that Saddam was simply not a threat. Please see the except from Mr. Cook's resignation speech, below. "Faulty intelligence" was cooked by organizations like the Office of Strategic Planning (OSP) in the Pentagon for purposes more related to public relations than the scientific gathering of intelligence. The story of how Blair's dossier was put together reads very much the same way.

These people weren't fooled. They lied and they knew they were lying. Not only should their scheme to invade Iraq for nefarious reasons cost them their positions, it should cost them their liberty after being tried before an international war crimes tribunal.

[T_i_B]

7. Sunday Times stuff with Cook

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-842665,00.html

TONY BLAIR privately conceded two weeks before the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein did not have any usable weapons of mass destruction, Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, reveals today. John Scarlett, chairman of the joint intelligence committee (JIC), also "assented" that Saddam had no such weapons, says Cook.

His revelations, taken from a diary that he kept as a senior minister during the months leading up to war, are published today in The Sunday Times. They shatter the case for war put forward by the government that Iraq presented "a real and present danger" to Britain.

The prime minister ignored the "large number of ministers who spoke up against the war", according to Cook. He also "deliberately crafted a suggestive phrasing" to mislead the public into thinking there was a link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, and he did not want United Nations weapons inspections to be successful, writes the former cabinet minister.

Cook writes: "The most revealing exchange came when we talked about Saddam's arsenal. I told him, 'It's clear from the private briefing I have had that Saddam has no weapons of mass destruction in a sense of weapons that could strike at strategic cities. But he probably does have several thousand battlefield chemical munitions. Do you never worry that he might use them against British troops?' " 'Yes, but all the effort he has had to put into concealment makes it difficult for him to assemble them quickly for use'."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-841557,00.html

[dArKeR]

8. Cook: Blair knew Iraq threat false - MSGOP

http://www.msnbc.com/news/976179.asp?0cv=CB10

[dArKeR]

15. Ex-Minister: Blair Misled Public - CBS

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/06/25/iraq/main560449.shtml

[are_we_united_yet]

9. The poodle is toast

burnt toast

[goforit]

10. OUCH!!!!.................Yet will the Brits still keep him?

Hmmm....

[tiredchap]

16. If the Labour party keeps him, probably. I vote Lib Dem but

they're unlikely to win. So, a choice between the Tories and Labour. Blair WILL win unless Brown leads a coup.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. A hung parliament is a genuine possibility now

if the Lib Dem vote holds up at the levels it's at now, and the Tory vote too. So if the Lib Dem stands a chance in your constituency, you might help get some kind of change.

[snippy]

11. Should we be shocked? Or awed? I'm not.

[Jack Rabbit]

12. BBC Link and a note on Cook's resignation speech last March

From the BBC Online
Dated Sunday October 5 12:06 GMT (4:06 am PDT)

Blair 'knew Iraq threat limited'

The prime minister knew Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction ready for use within 45 minutes, former foreign secretary Robin Cook has claimed.
He said that before the war started Mr Blair privately admitted that Saddam Hussein had no weapons posing a "real and present danger".
Mr Cook - who resigned as Leader of the Commons in protest at the conflict - makes his claims in a book based on his diaries, being serialised in the Sunday Times.
Downing Street has dismissed the allegations as "absurd".

Read more.
It should be noted that Robin Cook hinted at this in his resignation speech before the House of Commons on March 18:

For four years as foreign secretary I was partly responsible for the western strategy of containment.
Over the past decade that strategy destroyed more weapons than in the Gulf war, dismantled Iraq's nuclear weapons programme and halted Saddam's medium and long-range missiles programmes.
Iraq's military strength is now less than half its size than at the time of the last Gulf war.
Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days.
We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat.
Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target.

[Fridays Child]

14. GIVE THIS STORY A FIVE!!!

Sorry for yelling but, remember, Yahoo's highest-rated articles are the ones that get sent to their email news subscribers. So, if we always rate the Yahoo articles, it's one small way we can have a positive influence on the media.

[dolstein]

17. What a load of crap

That headline is dishonest.

Cook didn't say Blair "knew" the weapons claims were incorrent. Here's what the article says:

<<Cook suggested that when he spoke to the prime minister two weeks before the conflict began on March 20 he gained the impression that Blair was determined to go to war, regardless of progress made by United Nations (news - web sites) inspectors hunting for weapons of mass destruction.>>

So Cook is "suggesting" that he "gained the impression" that Blair was determined to go to war. Cook also notes that a "large number of ministers" opposed involvement in the military action.

Well, lets parse this through. The first statement doesn't have anything to do with whether or not Blair believed the intelligence regarding Iraqi possession of WMD's. The second statement doesn't give any indication as to number of ministers who SUPPORTED military involvement. Could it be that and even LARGER number of ministers supported the military action?

[muriel_volestrangler]

18. Try reading the first sentence of the article

"Tony Blair privately conceded before the war with Iraq that it had no quickly deployable chemical weapons, despite publicly claiming that Saddam Hussein's arsenal posed a serious threat"

That's where the headline comes from. Here's an actual quote from his dairy, published in the Sunday Times:
"I have no reason to doubt that Tony Blair believed in September that Saddam really had weapons of mass destruction ready for firing within 45 minutes. What was clear from this conversation was that he did not believe it himself in March."
More at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-842665,00.html , but that may not be available to non-British readers.